You aren't because you can't. Because I systematically pick what you write apart, and proceed to demolish every point you make. Stick your head in the sand. Lie to yourself about why you're doing it if you must. But don't think that what you're doing isn't obvious to everyone here.

I could pick at your bs quotations but it's really a waste of my time. You already made erroneous statements as is and I'm not wasting my time bickering with an ignorant. I've done it already before and like I said even if something is explained to you, you're like a dumb wall that goes in circles. Kind of like how e-fool was, except on top of his level of stupidity and anger towards Islam and Muslims, he would take it a step further to actually call for the genocide of Muslims.

I don't know about anyone else, but you won't find me calling for the initiation of violence on anyone. I'm against the initiation of violence, period.

“It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction. A holdup man seeks to gain wealth by killing me; I do not grow richer by killing a holdup man. I seek no values by means of evil, nor do I surrender my values to evil."

“It is only as retaliation that force may be used and only against the man who starts its use. No, I do not share his evil or sink to his concept of morality: I merely grant him his choice, destruction, the only destruction he had the right to choose: his own. He uses force to seize a value; I use it only to destroy destruction. A holdup man seeks to gain wealth by killing me; I do not grow richer by killing a holdup man. I seek no values by means of evil, nor do I surrender my values to evil."

The point of it is how in western capitalist nations (no need to play semantics on socialism in the UK western countries do work on the basis of capitalism), endorse and profit from nudity of women and the fashion industry, etc... while so called trying to talk about 'protecting women' when in fact capitalism exploits women and the west exploits women. That's all it's trying to say.

The point of it is how in western capitalist nations (no need to play semantics on socialism in the UK western countries do work on the basis of capitalism), endorse and profit from nudity of women and the fashion industry, etc... while so called trying to talk about 'protecting women' when in fact capitalism exploits women and the west exploits women. That's all it's trying to say.

Do you believe that a woman should not be able to choose to work in the fashion industry as a model? Assuming that is her free choice (and we can debate whether, in this environment, that choice is free) how is she being exploited?

I understand you have moral objections in connection with nudity, but you cannot make a rational argument that your morals can bind other people.

Your definition of freedom is anyone should do whatever they want under YOUR moral standard. In other words if I say something like should a murderer be allowed to kill it's his own free choice, you would start arguing about how this is wrong, impacts society, we have limits and punishments.

Well, under our moral standards we do not allow or condone such action. As much as you may disagree with that notion.

There is no such thing as unlimited freedom even in the west even though the west has become very loose.

Just as the laws and standards of western society are BINDING upon people, likewise we have standards that are binding upon Muslims and society at large for the protection of society rather than corruption of society.

As far as a woman who chooses to be a fashion model, porn star, cover magazine girl or movie star in nude scenes for all to see in theaters, how is she not exploited? Some women like to exploit men with their 'power' of nudity over them as well. It goes both ways. But the whole point is, muslim women or women who are of modest standards but 'foreign' to western standards are always seen as 'oppressed' while in fact we can argue the same for western women as in fact being oppresed.

"Cover girl" make up, hardly covering, more like covering with kilos of makeup to be noticed and accepted. While women that cover themselves want to be respected for their intellect not their lips, ass and breasts. So the point of that pic is the arguments that westerners throw out there at Muslim women, can far more easily be applied to western women.

Your definition of freedom is anyone should do whatever they want under YOUR moral standard. In other words if I say something like should a murderer be allowed to kill it's his own free choice, you would start arguing about how this is wrong, impacts society, we have limits and punishments.

No it's not and you know it. But if you need to blatantly lie about my position to attack it, well. that says something about you and the tractability of your position.

Of course I would argue that murdering is wrong and we should regulate it. The initiation of violence is wrong and your freedom to act ends where my freedom begins. Which means your freedom to swing a knife doesn't mean you can swing it into my chest.

Well, under our moral standards we do not allow or condone such action. As much as you may disagree with that notion.

What I disagree with is the notion that your moral standards bind me and others. As long as my actions don't infringe on your rights (which is why, for example, your "murder" example above is not only ridiculous but a blatant lie) your morals mean shit.

There is no such thing as unlimited freedom even in the west even though the west has become very loose.

Of course not - your freedom doesn't mean you can punch me in the nose. It does, however, mean that I can't tell you not to oil yourself up and pose on stage in a tiny thing, or what you choose to do behind closed doors with other consenting adults, or what to believe, etc.

Just as the laws and standards of western society are BINDING upon people, likewise we have standards that are binding upon Muslims and society at large for the protection of society rather than corruption of society.

Agreed. If you choose to live in a particular society you are bound by its laws. However that doesn't make the laws in question moral and a society that infringes on the freedom of its citizens won't last long. You see, people don't like to be under a yoke.

As far as a woman who chooses to be a fashion model, porn star, cover magazine girl or movie star in nude scenes for all to see in theaters, how is she not exploited?

Words have meaning Ahmed. Case in point:

ex•ploi•ta•tion: (noun) Utilization of another person or group against their will for selfish purposes.

How is a woman who freely and without external pressure decides to act in such films being exploited? Please note, that this doesn't preclude the possibility that some woman is exploited but that is a different topic.

Some women like to exploit men with their 'power' of nudity over them as well.

I agree, except I go further; you see, exploiters can in all shapes and sizes and use all sorts of tricks to exploit others. Nudity is hardly the only tool. Which is why it doesn't make sense to condemn nudity (or, indeed, the tool) but the act if exploiting someone else.

But the whole point is, muslim women or women who are of modest standards but 'foreign' to western standards are always seen as 'oppressed' while in fact we can argue the same for western women as in fact being oppresed.

I don't argue that modest women are oppressed. I argue that taking choice away is oppressive.

"Cover girl" make up, hardly covering, more like covering with kilos of makeup to be noticed and accepted. While women that cover themselves want to be respected for their intellect not their lips, ass and breasts. So the point of that pic is the arguments that westerners throw out there at Muslim women, can far more easily be applied to western women.

If a woman is so shallow that she wants to be respected only for her breasts or her hips; then more power to her; it's her choice. She'll attract the sort of men she deserves. There's a reason why terms like "bimbo" and "slut" were coined.

But your suggestion that women should cover up to get respect is an insult to both men and women. There are people who don't think with their genitals Ahmed, and guys don't lose all control if a woman wears form-fitting clothes.

No doubt, there's clothing that is appropriate for the situation and clothing that isn't.

The point is that it's not up to you to tell the woman what she can and cannot wear.

But your suggestion that women should cover up to get respect is an insult to both men and women. There are people who don't think with their genitals Ahmed, and guys don't lose all control if a woman wears form-fitting clothes.

No doubt, there's clothing that is appropriate for the situation and clothing that isn't.

The point is that it's not up to you to tell the woman what she can and cannot wear.

I agree with this.

From what I’ve gathered via reading and conversation, Islam often portrays men as remaining in some form of a state of lust and desirous of sex and that Muslim women simply don't have similar desires (at least in terms of frequency of thoughts of lust). Therefore, Muslim women need to cover up so that that Muslim men don’t turn into hulking, howling sex werewolves when a calf is shown.

Seems to me that the men of Islam just need to practice a bit more self-control. For example, I just spoke with an attractive woman in a tight fitting shirt and I somehow managed to keep my penis from becoming engorged with blood and bursting forth from behind my zipper.

It’s always struck me as odd that a divine reward for Muslim men entering Allah’s paradise is based upon an earthly pleasure…just assumed the infinite would transcend the finite a bit more. Although a Muslim man’s participation in sex with multiple female partners in Allah’s paradise won’t be “smelly and icky” (as ahmed put it) like it is in the world today. The orgy of flesh will become purified and righteous in paradise.

Yes one of the many promises to men is that they will have beautiful wives. That their worldly wives will be made queens of heaven and that they may get new wives while those who had no wives will certainly be given wives as described. What is wrong with a woman that is attractive, beautiful, chaste, pure? The men who get new wives their wives of this world will be queens and above those women that they may get in heaven.

On the other hand no women are not promised 'many men' but if they did not have a husband they will be given a pious husband.

There is a difference between men and women. We are equal in faith and piety, but not equal. This is known by atheists and all believers alike.

Men are more likely enticed and desiring of women than woman are of men. How often do you hear of women boasting and trolling lets say even on an internet forum about men? And how often do you hear about guys ranting about and obsessing over different women? This forum is a fine example.

What awaits us in paradise will be equitable to what we deserve and what God has prepared for us. It is still nothing like this world.

For example yes there will be sex in heaven, but it will not be smelly, it will not be icky, it will be different.

Absolute equity is a failed concept. Not everyone or everything is equal this is a fact. Communism failed my friend as it is against human nature and how God created us.

From what I’ve gathered via reading and conversation, Islam often portrays men as remaining in some form of a state of lust and desirous of sex and that Muslim women simply don't have similar desires (at least in terms of frequency of thoughts of lust). Therefore, Muslim women need to cover up so that that Muslim men don’t turn into hulking, howling sex werewolves when a calf is shown.

Seems to me that the men of Islam just need to practice a bit more self-control. For example, I just spoke with an attractive woman in a tight fitting shirt and I somehow managed to keep my penis from becoming engorged with blood and bursting forth from behind my zipper.

It’s always struck me as odd that a divine reward for Muslim men entering Allah’s paradise is based upon an earthly pleasure…just assumed the infinite would transcend the finite a bit more. Although a Muslim man’s participation in sex with multiple female partners in Allah’s paradise won’t be “smelly and icky” (as ahmed put it) like it is in the world today. The orgy of flesh will become purified and righteous in paradise.

go take a tour of your non-muslim brethren's respect for women's rights in the opinions and gossip section. Yes women who chose to not cover themselves are being respected right there and then by non-muslims clearly.

go take a tour of your non-muslim brethren's respect for women's rights in the opinions and gossip section. Yes women who chose to not cover themselves are being respected right there and then by non-muslims clearly.

Sure, guys will look at pictures of women who willingly put themselves in situations where they will be seen in an overtly sexual light and objectified. And? I don't want to tell women how they can or can't use their body, because I'm not qualified to and, more importantly, because I believe in freedom and the quintessence of freedom is to be able to use your own body in the way you see fit.

But even if all guys are horndogs who can't control themselves, why must women do anything about that? Why shouldn't men do something since they're the ones with the "problem"?

Never mind... it was a rhetorical question. Besides, we all know the answer anyways.